Hi Andreas,
On 09.05.23 12:17, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
during a test with piuparts I noticed your package does not ship the
SONAME link for its library (Policy 8.1).
I am a bit at a loss here.
If you look at the binary packages, libricocamerasdk contains:
-rw-r--r-- root/root 1255128 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so.1.1.0
-rw-r--r-- root/root 1156392 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmtpricoh.so.9.3.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so.1 ->
libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so.1.1.0
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmtpricoh.so.9 -> libmtpricoh.so.9.3.0
and libricocamerasdk-dev contains:
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so ->
libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so.1
lrwxrwxrwx root/root 0 2023-05-18 11:30
./usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libmtpricoh.so -> libmtpricoh.so.9
From my point of view all these links for both libraries look good.
I have no clue where the link:
/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so ->
libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so.1.1.0
that is mentioned in your log, comes from.
Also I have no idea why this only happens for libRicohCameraSDKCpp.so
and not libmtpricoh.so, which is in the same package and should not be
handled differently!?
Do you have any idea?
Best regards
Thorsten
